Post New

And, woof. Is he looking at some charges:

https://x.com/greg_price11/status/1978941419713638...

Lmfao this is allegedly an exchange John Bolton had with his friends while sending them classified information:

"More stuff coming!!!... None of which we talk about!!!"

"Shhhh"


Ooooof. In other words, he knew what he was transmitting.

I believe these three trials (Bolton, James, Comey) are going to be more about Trump than the defendants. I think best case for Trump is these get thrown out on a technicality prior to discovery. It will be another MAGA (making attorneys get attorneys) situation.
Alan

I believe these three trials (Bolton, James, Comey) are going to be more about Trump than the defendants.

Looking at the Bolton indictment, it looks really bad for him. The guy is literally emailing people his transcriptions of classified briefings and saying, 'Stand by for more stuff like this'. Even the bogus "intent" defense isn't going to save him.

Bolton's best move is to plead out...but, and this is where Trump looms in the discussion: the DOJ may not be in the mood to make him a deal.

So far the trump team already lost limiting discovery in the Comey case. The legitimacy of the appointment of Halligan is still in the air.
It is interesting that Bolton came in after those two as this case does seem much stronger, and more legitimate. However, the stench of those two will tend to color this one.
Alan

However, the stench of those two will tend to color this one.

Why? They have him dead to rights. He's looking at a massive fine if he's lucky. If he's unlucky he's going to be raking the sand traps at some Air Force Base's golf course.

You never know what a jury is going to do. There is a lot of things that could come to light, or get thrown out, between now and the end.

As we have seen before, sometimes the stuff made up by the right wing noise machine does not hold up well when a judge requires evidence and people to tell the truth.

Trumps public statements regarding this being about revenge can not be undone regardless of how many times they say it is about justice.

As we have seen before, sometimes the stuff made up by the right wing noise machine does not hold up well when a judge requires evidence and people to tell the truth.

What the indictment spells out is quite clear. You can’t do what Bolton did.

You left out the word "alleged".
I know due process is passe these days, but I suspect society will demand it. So far, you have only seen a small piece of one side. We can revisit this in about two years:-)
Alan

You left out the word "alleged".
I know due process is passe these days, but I suspect society will demand it. So far, you have only seen a small piece of one side. We can revisit this in about two years:-)
Alan

I really doubt this takes 2 years, lol.

I did not like Bolton. But that is irrelevant. He either did it, or he didn't. If he did it, then it doesn't matter if he's criticizing the Felon (which I agree with doing), he needs to pay the price. If not, he should go free (despite me not liking him).

It's really very simple. No matter who you are, the guilty should be punished, and the innocent set free.

As we have seen before,[beginning with all of those suits brought against various election officials in 2020, and continuing to this very moment] sometimes the stuff made up by the right wing noise machine does not hold up well when a judge requires evidence and people to tell the truth.

Sometimes? You’re being generous.

I’m just trying to remember. Did that girl ever get indicted? That one, you know, what was her name, Hillary?

No indictment, even though Trump had four years to do it last time? Weird, eh?

It's really very simple. No matter who you are, the guilty should be punished, and the innocent set free.

As we are seeing more and more, that is not how our justice system works. Look how Trump is bending it to his will with the help of horrid bootlickers like Bondi.

Come on Trumpers, let's start hearing about how terrible the weaponization of government is. I'm waiting...

No indictment, even though Trump had four years to do it last time? Weird, eh?

She would have been indicted if she ran again.

Steve

That’s not the flex he thinks it is.

Because if Trump were in fact weaponizing the DOJ Hillary! would have been the first one charged.

if Trump were in fact weaponizing the DOJ Hillary! would have been the first one charged.
For some definition of "weaponizing", I suppose. According to my dictionary, he has admitted to it.
Alan

Because if Trump were in fact weaponizing the DOJ Hillary! would have been the first one charged.

I'm sure the statute of limitations on any allegations about what Clinton might have done while in office is long since passed. She left the State Department in early 2013.

For some definition of "weaponizing", I suppose. According to my dictionary, he has admitted to it.

Either way. Trump's critics say many things that aren't true, and this happens to be one of them.

If Trump were truly doing what the left says he's doing, Hillary! would still be in prison. But she's not, so....

I'm sure the statute of limitations on any allegations about what Clinton might have done while in office is long since passed. She left the State Department in early 2013.

And fascistNaziHitlerpolpotStalin dictators are known for following laws, right?

And fascistNaziHitlerpolpotStalin dictators are known for following laws, right?

Still have to get a grand jury to indict, and there's a judge sitting with the grand jury to instruct them on procedural matters like statutes of limitations. A determined prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, they say, but even with all the favorable presumptions towards the prosecutor they're not going to be able to get an indictment on charges that are time-barred.

If Trump were truly doing what the left says he's doing, Hillary! would still be in prison. But she's not, so....

Spankee would be in prison--for the same "crimes".

She is NOT a pedophile, as Spankee is.

Spankee has 34 felony convictions. She has NONE. OOPS !!!

Still have to get a grand jury to indict, a

Fascist dictators just disappear people and I don't recall Hitler ever using a grand jury in Germany back in the day.

Or maybe we'd like to admit that the hyperbole around Trump is a bit overblown?

Fascist dictators just disappear people and I don't recall Hitler ever using a grand jury in Germany back in the day.

Or maybe we'd like to admit that the hyperbole around Trump is a bit overblown?

I don't think anyone has said that Trump has already turned the country into just as fascist a nation-state as late Hitler. The concerns are that he's pushing us down the road that fascists trod as they were turning their counties from free democracies to fascist states. Most fascists came to power within existing legal systems, and accumulated power by gradually bending and breaking the guardrails before reaching the totalitarian state endgame.

In this thread, the argument was that Trump can't be weaponizing the DOJ because Clinton isn't in jail. But that doesn't logically hold, because it's certainly possible to weaponize law enforcement against your enemies within the black-letter law constraints that exist today. It simply requires changing long-standing norms of how the law enforcement offices interact with the political offices and abandoning prosecutorial ethics and standards.

A determined prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, they say, but even with all the favorable presumptions towards the prosecutor they're not going to be able to get an indictment on charges that are time-barred.

I heard that ham sandwich line throughout my many years. And it certainly seems to be the case (no pun intended).

That is, until:

Following her 2025 confirmation as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro's office has struggled to secure indictments in multiple high-profile cases. This includes repeatedly failing to convince grand juries to approve felony charges.

Pirro's office tried three times to get a grand jury to approve a felony indictment against Sydney Lori Reid, who was accused of assaulting a federal agent during an encounter in Washington, D.C.. Each time, the grand jury refused to indict. Her office then pursued a lesser misdemeanor charge, but Reid was acquitted by a jury in October 2025.

In another case, Pirro's office dropped federal charges against Eduardo Alexander Dana, who was accused of threatening to kill President Donald Trump. A federal magistrate judge reprimanded Pirro's office after a grand jury declined to indict Dana, and the case was later dropped.

Pirro’s office has failed to secure indictments in several other cases involving threats and alleged assaults on federal officers. Reports from September 2025 indicated that grand juries had refused to return indictments in at least seven instances across five different cases initiated during the Trump administration's "crime crackdown" in D.C.

Says a lot about the quality of Trump’s appointees as well as the incompetence of the trumped up (pun intended) charges being brought forward for political, rather than legal, purposes.

I don't think anyone has said that Trump has already turned the country into just as fascist a nation-state as late Hitler.

Uh, huh. Wow, not even a millimeter of give.

According to my dictionary, he has admitted to it.

It’s all out in the open. He admits to crime-ing, and his followers seem ok with it. And when we protest the crime-ing, we are “anti- American antifa terrorists”.

Having said that, it looks like they have the goods on Bolton, if they can avoid the charge of launching a vindictive prosecution.

Uh, huh. Wow, not even a millimeter of give.

What? I'm the one who in the other thread was making the argument that many of the Administration's actions on immigration enforcement aren't unlawful, that Trump is just exercising the powers that Congress gave to the Presidency (which are enormous) and working within the scope of Constitutional rights that are afforded non-citizens (which are much narrower than many assume). I would agree that many of the things that the Administration is doing which are criticized as being authoritarian or illegal are actually the President just deciding to use a lot of the powers that Congress explicitly gave to the Executive, and which prior Presidents didn't exercise to the full extent allowed.

I just think you're wrong in intimating that Trump can only be a fascist if his actions are reminiscent of Hitler in the late 1930's, rather than Hitler in the late 1920's, such that if he's not disappearing political enemies without a trial he can't possibly be a fascist. That's not correct. Hitler was a fascist the entire time, and his rise to power took place mostly by gradually breaking down the guardrails of German democracy.

So pointing out that Trump hasn't today abolished the courts or started "disappearing" every single one of his political enemies isn't really a rejoinder against allegations that he's acting as a fascist. Because even the literal fascist governments of WWII didn't start off there, either.

What?

Not everything requires a massive discussion. Trump isn't Hitler. Saying "Trump is Hitler or <insert your favorite despot here>" is categorically stupid. Period, full stop.

As for your post, your point about "gradually breaking down the guardrails" is completely eviscerated by "he President just deciding to use a lot of the powers that Congress explicitly gave to the Executive".

Because even the literal fascist governments of WWII didn't start off there, either.

Sigh. History is so being butchered on this board. Hitler started off with a failed revolution, did time in prison, wrote a manifesto detailing exactly what he wanted to do, formed a street army, and basically bullied his way into power.

As for your post, your point about "gradually breaking down the guardrails" is completely eviscerated by "he President just deciding to use a lot of the powers that Congress explicitly gave to the Executive".

It's not. Some of the stuff Trump is doing is deciding to use previously granted powers. Some other stuff is "doing things that are probably prohibited by law, but can have a major impact before the courts can get around to enjoining it." Some other stuff is ignoring non-legal guardrails that are an important part of functioning democracies (like not having the President directly order the AG to prosecute or not prosecute people).

It's not a binary, where if there exist some things that Trump is doing that are non-authoritarian it must mean that everything Trump is doing is non-authoritarian.

Hitler started off with a failed revolution, did time in prison, wrote a manifesto detailing exactly what he wanted to do, formed a street army, and basically bullied his way into power.

Sure. But he didn't start disappearing people without a trial on day one of his bullying his way into power. He gradually changed the nature of the German government. You had a gradual decline of the rule of law, replaced by the rule of whatever advanced the ruling party ideology. Illiberalism didn't happen in a single day, but developed over a series of incremental acts, changes, and programs that moved Germany from a "rule of law" government to a "rule of ideology" government over the course of many years.

Dope1: Fascist dictators just disappear people... Or maybe we'd like to admit that the hyperbole around Trump is a bit overblown?

Leqaa Kordia would like a word.

Some other stuff is ignoring non-legal guardrails that are an important part of functioning democracies (like not having the President directly order the AG to prosecute or not prosecute people).


Uh, huh. President's never work with their AGs, right? We've never had a "wingman" scenario before, or other ones meeting targets of investigations in private settings, either?

Trump isn't doing a single that that's never been done before.

It's not a binary, where if there exist some things that Trump is doing that are non-authoritarian it must mean that everything Trump is doing is non-authoritarian.

It's just...dumb. The same morons who called Bush Hitler and said he was going to cancel elections in 2004 and 2008 are the same morons who said that TrumpHitler was going to cancel the 2020 elections and the same morons who say that TrumpHitler is going to cancel elections in 2026 and 2028...will say the same things about Theoretical President Vance or DeSantis in 2030 and 2032.

In other words, morons gonna moron.

But he didn't start disappearing people without a trial on day one of his bullying his way into power.

The SA was murdering people at least as early as 1931.

Trump isn't doing a single that that's never been done before.

You've never had a President publicly call for the prosecution of their political enemies, by name.

You might have a conspiratorial bent in thinking that this happened all the time, but every other prior AG has had some degree of political independence conferred on them by the fact that the President would be punished politically if they asked the AG to pursue an unfounded prosecution solely for political reasons, and the AG declined. There's a reason why this DOJ is acting differently than Bill Barr's DOJ - because Trump has obliterated the presumption that AG's should have some exercise their own authority in making prosecutorial determinations.

Keeping the prosecutorial function separate from the primary political office of the Executive is a core element of a "rule of law", small-l liberal society. There is a reason why nearly all states have their AG be a separate office, rather than be under the direct control of the Governor's office. it might be every state - I'm too lazy to check. Yes, the Governor and AG will talk to each other. But it's an important protection that the Prosecutor have the ability to push back against the Executive. Even though the AG is also a political office, by having the Prosecutorial and Executive powers in two different people, they face different political incentives - which reduces the degree to which the Prosecutorial power is subordinated to ordinary politics.

The U.S. government isn't formally set up that way, but some measure of that structure was informally created by the expected norm that the President had to let the AG have some independence or there would be political hell to pay. Not total independence, and certainly the President and AG talk - just like Governors and AG's talk. But you never had a situation where the AG would be completely subordinate to the President with no expectation that they would be allowed to exercise their independent judgment in prosecutorial decisions. Trump has abolished that norm.

It's different, Dope. On some level, I think you realize that this is bad. That it's bad for the President to be calling out names for prosecutions on their social media feed, and then having those people prosecuted at his direction. That's not how rule of law states work.

The SA was murdering people at least as early as 1931.

Yes, but Hitler was seizing power through legal and democratic means as early as the mid-1920's. He didn't just jump in on day 1 and start disappearing people - and he didn't completely abolish the guardrails around the government's exercise of power until March of 1933. So it's not really a strong argument to claim that because the U.S. isn't today like Germany under the Enabling Act, it must mean Trump can't possibly be a fascist. Because Hitler was a fascist long before he got the powers of the Enabling Act.

albaby1,

I enjoy reading your posts so much even if I don’t always agree.

But I honestly want to commend you, for, as far as I’ve seen in the last several months of lurking here, never resorting to language like this:

In other words, morons gonna moron.

No matter the intellectual crutches and unseemly language of some of your interlocutors, you remain a mensch.

Hitler started off with a failed revolution, did time in prison, wrote a manifesto detailing exactly what he wanted to do, formed a street army, and basically bullied his way into power.

1. Those who not know history are doomed to repeat it.

2. Go to 1.

No matter the intellectual crutches and unseemly language of some of your interlocutors, you remain a mensch.

I appreciate the kind words. And please feel welcome to chime in when you feel like no longer lurking!

It's just...dumb. The same morons who called Bush Hitler and said he was going to cancel elections in 2004 and 2008

I remember election night, of 2004. The local Detroit news showed a helo shot of people lined up around the block, in Toledo, trying to vote, at 11pm. For those folks in Toledo, still in line at 11pm, the election may as well have been cancelled. Seems everything went fine in Repub areas of Ohio, but the Dem leaning districts in Toledo and Cleveland were mysteriously short of voting machines. The Ohio state official who was responsible for running elections was also the head of the Bush campaign in Ohio, because conflict of interest is a "traditional American value".'

Bush carried Ohio by 118,000 votes.

Steve

You've never had a President publicly call for the prosecution of their political enemies, by name.


We've had Presidents sic various departments on their political enemies. We've also had Presidents give speeches and label half the country as political enemies.

t's different, Dope. On some level, I think you realize that this is bad. That it's bad for the President to be calling out names for prosecutions on their social media feed, and then having those people prosecuted at his direction. That's not how rule of law states work.

I'm beyond sick of the NaziHitler crap and am going to dismiss those who bring it up as morons. Now if someone wants to have a balanced conversation around the limits of Presidential power absent the silly name calling that those things always devolve into I'm all for it.

I remember election night, of 2004. The local Detroit news showed a helo shot of people lined up around the block, in Toledo, trying to vote, at 11pm. For those folks in Toledo, still in line at 11pm, the election may as well have been cancelled. Seems everything went fine in Repub areas of Ohio, but the Dem leaning districts in Toledo and Cleveland were mysteriously short of voting machines. The Ohio state official who was responsible for running elections was also the head of the Bush campaign in Ohio, because conflict of interest is a "traditional American value".'

Bush carried Ohio by 118,000 votes.


Uh, huh. Sounds like the election wasn't cancelled.
You're also aware that elections are run down at the precinct level inside of cities....and that Toledo, OH is very likely not run by conservative Republicans, right?

Nice try, but try again.

We've had Presidents sic various departments on their political enemies. We've also had Presidents give speeches and label half the country as political enemies.

But never the formal power of the prosecutorial arm of the government. That's different. There's a reason why nearly every state doesn't let their Governor oversee actual prosecutions, having an independently elected AG.

I'm beyond sick of the NaziHitler crap and am going to dismiss those who bring it up as morons.

That's your prerogative, but you should at least understand that when people bring it up they're not comparing the current Administration's policies as being NaziHitler circa 1938, but NaziHitler circa 1929. The "rise to power" part of Nazi Germany, where the Nazis converted Germany away from a liberal (small-l) "rule of law" society into an authoritarian society where all governmental decisions revolved around a single person and party.

The dissolution of German rule of law didn't happen in a day. It was a long, gradual descent marked by eliminating barriers to authoritarian power one at a time.

People are right to be troubled by the gradual descent into illiberalism we're experience in the U.S., and indeed many other countries. To quote another discussion on the point, liberal democracy depends on a shared belief in individual rights, equality of all citizens, and the rule of law. It can only function if the major political factions don't behave as if they have a monopoly on the truth or a right to power. Illiberal actors think they have both.

I agree that folks tend to ignore the distinctions between actions being illiberal, anti-democratic, authoritarian, or illegal. A lot of what Trump does is illiberal (meaning the conservative sense of small "l" liberal) without being authoritarian or illegal or anti-democratic. That doesn't make people who use the wrong label "morons," and I think you do yourself a disservice in not trying to understand what points are actually being made.

That's your prerogative, but you should at least understand that when people bring it up they're not comparing the current Administration's policies as being NaziHitler circa 1938, but NaziHitler circa 1929. The "rise to power" part of Nazi Germany, where the Nazis converted Germany away from a liberal (small-l) "rule of law" society into an authoritarian society where all governmental decisions revolved around a single person and party.

Exactly correct. The Republicans haven't (yet) set up death camps for liberals and atheists. But they are eroding our democracy, with the complicity of Congress who has been giving the Executive more power for decades (because, IMHO, they are too cowardly to take stands for themselves, so they put it all on the Executive). They are demonizing liberals and journalists as enemies of the state. They are compiling enemies lists, and persecuting many of them. Classic authoritarian stuff.

But they are eroding our democracy, with the complicity of Congress who has been giving the Executive more power for decades because, IMHO, they are too cowardly to take stands for themselves, so they put it all on the Executive

Oh, I think that's a bit unfair. Trivially, shifting power from Congress to the Executive doesn't "erode our democracy." The President is just as democratically elected as Congress is. That's why I noted that critics of Trump often don't distinguish between (among other things) "illiberal" and "anti-democratic." Having power wielded by the President instead of Congress (or staff) isn't anti-democratic.

More substantively, a huge reason that the Executive has accumulated vast amounts of power is because of progressive efforts to have the federal government do more and more stuff. If the federal government is mostly about making very general laws (and having armies and whatnot), then the legislature is very powerful. But the more you have the federal government running programs and permitting and inspecting and awarding grants and running insurance programs, the more power you have to give to the Executive. Every decision the federal government makes that isn't a law is an action that has to be taken by the Executive. The more decisions you have the federal government make, the more powerful the Executive is.

The reason that Trump is able to do what he's doing is by wielding the massive amount of authority that Congress had to give to the Executive if it wanted to have all the programs that we have. For example, do you want to spend a lot of money on funding research in universities at the federal level? You then have to give the Executive control over billions of dollars and the grant application process to allocate them. Want to granularly regulate environmental permitting and regulation? That can't be done by a legislature - you have to give a lot of power and discretion to the Executive. Etc.

You can't have a weak Executive and an expansive federal government.

The reason that this has kind of worked up until now is that most Presidents wanted to get things out of Congress, so that gave Congress the ability to influence how the President used the power that Congress bestowed. But Trump don't care - he realized that the Presidency already had enough authority for him to do most of what he wants without having to get legislation passed.

Oh, I think that's a bit unfair.

I don't. As I recall, even you have opined that Congress doesn't like taking difficult decisions because they might offend someone (i.e. a voter), so they continued -for decades- to push more responsibility onto POTUS. Then they could yell at POTUS, and take zero blame.

I won't disagree with you that the Executive has to have power to administer what Congress orders (e.g. when Congress approves funds for something, the Executive has to make that happen). That's not what the Felon is doing. He's illegally withholding funds designated by Congress for express purposes. Just as one example. At least Congress rescinded the post-9/11 act authorizing military action without a declaration of war. Though it's not stopping the Felon from going to war in the Caribbean (which Congress absolutely should be stopping, but they don't want to lose a voter by taking a stand).

Congress is a bunch of cowards, with a few exceptions. One exception is a Rep whose going to be gerrymandered out of his seat by CA in response to the TX gerrymandering. He's being very vocal because -simply- he has nothing to lose at this point.

Uh, huh. Sounds like the election wasn't cancelled.

No, not cancelled outright, but more than a hint that it was cancelled in selected districts.

Former Ohio Elections Chief Blackwell Brings a Troubled Record
on Elections to Fraud Commission

When in office, Blackwell earned a reputation for sowing partisan conflict — a challenging dynamic
in a position that involved running elections. In 2004, he served as co-chair for President Bush’s re-
election campaign in Ohio, a “swing state” where the election he oversaw was vigorously contested
— and also campaigned for a “defense of marriage” amendment on the ballot that year. In that
same election, Blackwell issued a series of decisions that both restricted access to voting (discussed
below) and invited criticism for the appearance and substance of partisanship.
Greg Hartmann, the Republican who ran to succeed Blackwell in 2006, called Blackwell’s choice to
co-chair the Ohio Bush campaign a mistake.3 Newspaper editorial boards observed “a disturbingly
erratic combination of inattention to his job and blatant partisanship in the conduct of elections,”4
as well as an “overtly partisan record.”5 The Columbus Dispatch framed the issue as a question:
“Can an elections chief be so partisan that his ability to manage a clean vote comes into question? In Blackwell’s case, yes.”

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/...

***ripped from today's headlines***

Adelita Grijalva can force a vote on the Epstein files, but she's still not sworn in

More than three weeks after winning her congressional race, Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva never imagined her fight to get sworn into office would take this long.

The Arizona Democrat has keys to her office, but not much else.

https://www.npr.org/2025/10/16/g-s1-93709/adelita-...

If the people vote, but TPTB refuse to let the winner take office, has the election been cancelled?

Steve....HBTT

I won't disagree with you that the Executive has to have power to administer what Congress orders (e.g. when Congress approves funds for something, the Executive has to make that happen). That's not what the Felon is doing.

It's not all he's doing, but it's a lot of what he's doing. Sure, some of the things he's trying - like violating the anti-impoundment act - are deliberate efforts to flount Congressional control. So too his efforts to get all the independent agencies abolished or under his control (though at least there he's mostly going to court).

But much of the stuff he's doing is just using the tools that Congress gave him, just in a very different way than all his predecessors. Congress created a shirt-ton of federal programs that required a shirt-ton of people to implement them... which meant they had to give the President the power to direct their activities and hire and fire them. Which is how DOGE happened. Congress sends massive amounts of money through the Executive to fund all kinds of programs - and since Congress can't possibly review every grant application and project proposal, they had to give the President the authority to do those reviews. Which is how all the pressure on colleges happened. Etc.

Congress relied on the fact that most Presidents need to have a working relationship with Congress in order to do the things they have on their agenda. So they would pick agency heads that would (and could) work with Congress, allow their agency employees to respond to Congressional interests, and make sure they weren't goring any oxen that might have connections with Congress. Trump doesn't care. At all.

So he has entirely changed the dynamic of the federal government. No one is allowed to be solicitous of Congress or outside constituencies. Every action has to be advancing the President's policy goals, and no one else's. He's able to do this because he's ordered everyone in the government to do this. No more leeway for staff to decide on their own between priorities, no more discretion to appease a budget committee chair... and no political consequences for staff anymore for not caring about Congress or outside interests, because everyone knows that these are all Trump's calls. Trump takes all the political heat (which he can handle), so he makes all the calls and everyone can pound sand.

That's your prerogative, but you should at least understand that when people bring it up they're not comparing the current Administration's policies as being NaziHitler circa 1938, but NaziHitler circa 1929.

No offense, but this line generates to biggest *eyeroll* of all time. These morons know exactly what they're saying when they use the analogy. There's no "But they mean the version of Hitler from this date and not the genocidal one". Come on. Let's not even try this.

People are right to be troubled by the gradual descent into illiberalism we're experience in the U.S., and indeed many other countries.

Except there is no gradual descent into *anything*. liberals are upset because many of the policies that used to favor liberals and give them a structural advantage are being redone or removed. For example: USAID. How great it is to be a left wing NGO that espouses left wing policies and employs left wingers be fully funded by...the American taxpayer! How nice. Well, that's done with now. liberals are upset because their gravy train has come to a (rightful) end.

That doesn't make people who use the wrong label "morons," and I think you do yourself a disservice in not trying to understand what points are actually being made.

Except that I've read the same people make the same points over and over again and the nuance credit that you're giving them...really isn't something they've earned.

Tell you what. If one of them actually comes up with something I will read it and comment on it. Not a screengrab of something somebody else wrote, their own work.

No offense, but this line generates to biggest *eyeroll* of all time. These morons know exactly what they're saying when they use the analogy. There's no "But they mean the version of Hitler from this date and not the genocidal one". Come on. Let's not even try this.

No. This is Dope thinking that he absolutely knows what's in the mind of others that he dismisses as morons and doesn't really listen to what they are saying.

It's been stated over and over on these boards that most people are comparing Trump now to the earlier years of Hitler and his path of gradual implementation of fascism. It's been stated often enough that it doesn't need to be reiterated in every single post.

For example, a post of mine from a year ago (admittedly I'm not a frequent poster):

https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?pid=935091802

Heck, I would argue that even Hitler himself wasn't always a "literal Hitler" in the sense that I think it was meant here. It depends what era of Hitler you are talking about.

Hitler 1930 presented a different face than Hitler 1942. Most of the Hitler comparisons for Trump I would say have been people comparing him to Hitler's rise to power, using the same "playbook", having the same type of aspirations. Not that he is (yet) committing all of the same atrocities and (yet) commanding the same level of power. But moving in that direction in a way that makes many of us very uncomfortable.

These morons know exactly what they're saying when they use the analogy.

There, I think you're completely wrong. The reason that people analogize to the decline of Germany (and especially the Reichstag fire event) is because it's the most famous example of a previously democratic "rule of law" country that fell into an authoritarian dictatorship by gradual changes working within the existing system. Not only the most famous example - it's the only example that most people are familiar with.

There are, of course, other examples of democratic "rule of law" states that disappear into authoritarianism - but typically not one that works that way. Sometimes they're conquered from without, sometimes they are overthrown by revolution, and sometimes there's just a very quick coup. If you look to history for examples of what liberals are concerned is happening in the U.S., there aren't all that many. Venezuela under Maduro, the Philippines under Marcos....the list is fairly short, and most folks aren't familiar with any other instances of this dynamic except Weimar Germany. Unlike interwar Germany, which most Americans are taught about in high school and which is the subject of a few pieces of popular culture (like Cabaret), there's no real shared historical knowledge of how Venezuela or the Philippines slowly lost their democracies to authoritarian regimes.

You choose to ignore what people actually are saying when they use the Weimar/Nazi/Hitler comparison, and decide they're talking about the holocaust instead. Even though it's very clear they're talking about how Hitler gained power. Again, it's your prerogative to misunderstand the comparison if you want to - but I think it diminishes your ability to get anything out of your conversations with people who disagree with you.

So he has entirely changed the dynamic of the federal government. No one is allowed to be solicitous of Congress or outside constituencies. Every action has to be advancing the President's policy goals, and no one else's. He's able to do this because he's ordered everyone in the government to do this

And this became apparent after a couple of firings and putting in the new Attorney General. This was after a series of other firings where Trump anticipated non compliance with his orders, and people retiring or just quitting after seeing the writing on the wall. When he fired the Eisenhower Museum Director because he wouldn't give up one of Eisenhower's swords it became very clear that you either do as Trump ask, or you';re fired. And he prefers enthusiasm, and willingness to lie for him.

There, I think you're completely wrong

Well I think *you’re* completely wrong. You’re giving the people who not say that Trump is Hitler but his voters are also Nazis intellectual cover to keep doing the same kinda of things.

So we can agree to disagree. When we hold normal elections in 2026 and 2028 (barring some ridiculous event) these same people will go silent on the subject until the next Republican administration. And then they’ll start up the dam nonsense again.

You’re giving the people who not say that Trump is Hitler but his voters are also Nazis intellectual cover to keep doing the same kinda of things.

Dope, if you've followed me, I was using the term proto-fascist up until recently. Proto fascist regimes set the stage for evolving into full fascism. I recently said we've left the bank of the Rubicon and I don't know how far it is to the other side. Crossing the Rubicon means there is no going back. Once we reach the other bank and disembark, we are in an authoritarian state and the US as a democracy is history. I don't recall ever saying Trump is Hitler, but you've accused me of it. Part of Hitler's rise to power was things got better for a bit. He was popular - there's an old pic of the Queen as a child giving the Nazi salute. But I think Trump is going to screw up the economy and make everyone unhappy. America's saving grace my be that Trump doesn't really understand the economy. But in the meantime, Trump's consolidation of pwoer is calssic authoritarianism, and we have to see what holds up and what gives way. There's over three years left.

Albaby isn't giving any "intellectual cover" - it has everything to do with Trump's actions. It's real, this is not a game. We're all being pwned, including you.

There, I think you're completely wrong. The reason that people analogize to the decline of Germany (and especially the Reichstag fire event) is because it's the most famous example of a previously democratic "rule of law" country that fell into an authoritarian dictatorship by gradual changes working within the existing system. Not only the most famous example - it's the only example that most people are familiar with.

A clip from "Judgement at Nuremberg", made when the horrors were still fresh in people's minds.

For Love of Country

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGfHkdR3tXs

Steve

Venezuela under Maduro, the Philippines under Marcos..

Chile under Pinochet
Hungary under Orban
Turkey under Erdogan
Russia under Putin

albaby1, in addition to the other compliments I gave, I see your sustained focus and forbearance as nigh on saintly, along with the consistent respect you give others. These are traits I really want to improve in myself, but they’re a work in progress.

You seem to have very little of what the Buddhists call monkey mind…

Ok, no more gushing for today (‘today’ since I’m in SE Asia at the moment). 😁

Trump isn't doing a single that that's never been done before.

Fool.

You live in a bubble.

'm beyond sick of the NaziHitler crap and am going to dismiss those who bring it up as morons.

You know the old saying about ducks.

Wake up!

even the literal fascist governments of WWII didn't start off there, either.


Spot on. I was asked this week to resubmit certain family documents that establish my family's Jewish lineage, and the events that led to fleeing from Vienna to avoid persecution.

They will be used at an upcoming event sponsored by the German and Austrian embassies for descendants of families that faced persecution in the 20s and 30s that are interested in reclaiming citizenship.

Included is a packet of letters, all in German, between my great uncle -a pediatrician who immigrated to New York in 1928- my grandfather who perished in Vienna on Krystallnacht, my father newly resettled in New York, and my Catholic Grandmother sitting out the war in Ljubljana.

The letters from my great uncle in Brooklyn to my grandfather in Vienna discussed the increasing radicalization as Austrians bought into the Hitlerian lies and Reich propaganda. Uncle Paul urged his brother in Vienna to 'get visas for the boys'. My grandfather wrote of being fired by the University because he was a Jew, the shunning of the family by Austrian neighbors under the thrall of the fascists, culminating in a letter to Uncle Paul to 'Please watch out for my boys.'

The last letter in the packet, from my Dad in Jamaica, New York to my grandmother in Ljubljana, dated December 6, 1941, had a government sticker on the envelope: "OPENED EXAMINED". It expressed the hope that they might someday be together again.

The similarities of the rise of the Reich in the 20s and 30s to the present are frighteningly clear to those who survived, and to students of history. We simply don't understand Stephen Miller's motivation or the attraction to the evolving fascist movement.

Bolton is a pawn of very powerful-- -- interests.

He won't do time.


Don't worry, he and his bosses will start more wars. He;'ll be ok.

For example: USAID. How great it is to be a left wing NGO that espouses left wing policies and employs left wingers be fully funded by...the American taxpayer! How nice

Other than it's hogslop, it sounds good. I knew people of faith who are in religious organizations that use USAID.

SNIP AI
Yes, USAID actively engages with and provides funding to many religious and faith-based organizations (FBOs) to support development and humanitarian work. In fact, faith-based groups are some of the largest recipients of USAID funds.
However, USAID does not provide public relations (PR) assistance. Instead, it works with these groups to support specific development and humanitarian projects. To avoid issues of church-state separation, USAID has strict rules preventing its funds from being used for inherently religious activities like worship or proselytization. SNIP

I've got no problem at all with collaborating with faith based orgs - and I even think that some of them are deceitful and fraudulent to get the aid (through my friends), but the ones that aren't more than make up for that.

One late friend, may he RIP, was working on getting water filters to remote parts of Africa, and he sold them to help finance that part. He also worked on a project an island over from me to pave access roads into barrios for emergency vehicles. He also got these hand hauled fire vehicles for the areas they couldn't get into. He was also assessing school facilities in a trip to Africa. Multi talented fellow who could easily have been a success on Wall Street. A couple of head injuries from riding motorbikes did him in. I was the only person outside of the church to attend his funeral.

Other than it's hogslop, it sounds good. I knew people of faith who are in religious organizations that use USAID.

That’s nice. Doesn’t alter my point.

Dope1: Fascist dictators just disappear people...Or maybe we'd like to admit that the hyperbole around Trump is a bit overblown?

Yes many are saying that Trump indicting his enemies one-by-one rather than having them murdered in a single night proves he’s not a fascist!

Also, the media needs to move on from College Republicans repeatedly praising Hitler and genocide in their private messages...

and finally, DO NOT go fishing in the Caribbean Sea.

We simply don't understand Stephen Miller's motivation or the attraction to the evolving fascist movement.

Perhaps this deserves its own thread. Isn't is people looking for scapegoats to their own problems? In the 20s, Germany was going through a massive depression. Along came this ex-corporal saying they were betrayed by their leaders, and the greedy Jews were responsible for them not having jobs or being able to feed their families. Today, it's illegal migrants (and, to a lesser degree, liberals). But it's the same concept.

Obviously, that's a broad hand-wave explanation. Lots of details if we want to get into the weeds. But it seems to me that its a very similar message in both instances. ICE is a government agency that is mimicking the SA is many ways, and the gestapo (also governmental) in other ways.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.